Funding of services to residents in publicly funded long-term care (LTC) facilities has historically rested upon a list of physical needs. However, more than 60% of residents in nursing homes have dementia; a condition in which physical needs are only a part of the overall clinical picture. Since past funding formulas focused primarily on the physical characteristics of residents, the Ontario government has adopted the RUG (Resource Utilization Groups)-III (34 Group) for use in LTC facilities which follows the adoption of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0 assessment instrument. Some still question whether the newer formula adequately reflects the care needs of residents with dementia despite its validation in many countries. The purpose of this study was to determine the comprehensiveness of the RUG-III (34 Group) in addressing the needs of residents with dementia living in LTC. First, a critical systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the needs of residents with dementia. Numerous electronic databases were searched for articles published between January 2000 and September 2010, and later cross-referenced. Second, needs identified from the literature were matched to the items of the RUG-III which are selected variables of the MDS 2.0. Third, the priority of the items in the RUG-III was analysed in accordance with the importance of the identified needs. The documented needs were taken from 68 studies and classified into 19 main categories. The needs most supported by the literature were the management of behavioural problems, social needs, the need for daily individualized activities/care and emotional needs/personhood. Among the needs identified, activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive needs and general overall physical health met the most RUG-III items. These needs were found to be well represented within the system. Other needs of importance such as social needs are not thoroughly considered in the grouping methodology though matched to MDS variables. The fact that these needs are not well addressed in the RUG-III poses concerns. Future research is needed to validate the significance of these needs. Considerations should be made as to the adequacy of the funding system and the allocation of funding.

Health practitioners collect health data on a daily basis at health facility levels in order to monitor and evaluate the performance of priority national health programmes (District Health Plan 2012:6). Routine data quality for health programmes monitoring need a collective intervention to ensure clear understanding for what data to be collected at primary health care setting. The aim of the study is to explore the understanding of routine health data, determine the use of routine data and feedback mechanism at primary health care clinic setting. Quantitative descriptive research design was used to answer the research question on this research study. Structured data collection questionnaire was used for the study to accomplish the research purpose and reach the study objectives. A total of 400 participants was sampled, and 247 responded. One of the findings was that the understanding of routine health data by Health Practitioners was at 82.6% (% = f/n*100, f= 3242 and n= 3926). / Health Studies

Health practitioners collect health data on a daily basis at health facility levels in order to monitor and evaluate the performance of priority national health programmes (District Health Plan 2012:6). Routine data quality for health programmes monitoring need a collective intervention to ensure clear understanding for what data to be collected at primary health care setting. The aim of the study is to explore the understanding of routine health data, determine the use of routine data and feedback mechanism at primary health care clinic setting. Quantitative descriptive research design was used to answer the research question on this research study. Structured data collection questionnaire was used for the study to accomplish the research purpose and reach the study objectives. A total of 400 participants was sampled, and 247 responded. One of the findings was that the understanding of routine health data by Health Practitioners was at 82.6% (% = f/n*100, f= 3242 and n= 3926). / Health Studies